Armed humanitarian intervention and the problem of abuse after Libya

Antient and modern History indeed informs us, that Avarice and Ambition do frequently lay hold on such Excuses; but the Use that wicked Men make of a Thing, does not always hinder it from being just in itself. (Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, 1625). We are aware that any altruistic concept may be abused by the powerful. We know this from experience. Although they might seek to legitimize interventions that have little or nothing to do with - in this case - the four major crimes, the misuse of a concept does not invalidate it. (Heraldo Muñoz, Chilean Ambassador to the United Nations, 2009). Introduction. The idea of armed humanitarian intervention has long been attended with warnings that it will be abused by powerful states seeking to justify wars fought not for humanitarian purposes but for self-interest. This problem of abuse has received renewed attention in the wake of NATO’s recent intervention in Libya. Critics charge that NATO misappropriated a UN Security Council resolution authorizing limited use of force to protect civilians and that it instead waged an expansive military campaign in pursuit of self-interested objectives of regime change and the establishment of favorable diplomatic and trade relations. As it has in the past, such apparent abuse has led some critics to reject the idea of a right of humanitarian military intervention in any form.